Post navigation

Speaking in Vienna to a group of bureaucrats with a collective carbon footprint so large you could sell burro rides into its vast depths, Secretary of State John Kerry warned of the rise of radical air conditioning:

As we were working together on the challenge of [ISIS] and terrorism, It’s hard for some people to grasp it, but what we–you–are doing here right now is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself. The use of hydrofluorocarbons is unfortunately growing. Already, the HFCs use in refrigerators, air conditioners, and other items are emitting an entire gigaton of carbon dioxide-equivalent pollution into the atmosphere annually.

Kerry went on to say that the use of air conditioners and refrigerators has been on the rise throughout the world for the past three decades. And it turns out he’s right. As free markets have paved the way for fossil-fuel-based cheap energy in developing countries, the people of those countries have been able to escape harsh weather and preserve their food longer. This has led to a rise in overall health. It has also made the quotidian survival burden lighter, allowing many to focus on business and education, which has led to innovation––innovation which has led to a cleaner environment and still cheaper energy.

It’s a vicious cycle, and it must be stopped.

Here in the US, the major concern is over radical air conditioning sleeper cells. Just last year in Garryowen, Montana, a local baseball coach and his wife found themselves in an intense firefight after catching their air conditioner in the act of beheading a journalist.

Many concerned citizens are signing this petition, in the hope that Secretary Kerry will lead the way by ridding the State Department of all air conditioning units.

As usual, there has been a lot of talk about the lesser of two evils during this campaign season. But in my lifetime, I don’t think I’ve ever seen two such blatant evils running against each other. These two authoritarians, who believe they can do whatever they want, the constitution be damned, are the result of nearly eight years of a president who believed the same thing and was allowed to have it that way.

But which of them is the lesser evil? The answer, at this point in the race, is Trump. Clinton is worse. I do not write this as an endorsement of Trump, but as a criticism of those who pretend a Trump presidency would be some kind of unmitigated disaster, while a Clinton presidency would simply keep the status quo.

Just yesterday, The Washington Post published a fear pamphlet about Donald Trump. I find statements like the following to be particularly mind-numbing.

His contempt for constitutional norms might reveal the nation’s two-century-old experiment in checks and balances to be more fragile than we knew.

Really? After eight years of “pen and phone” Obama, you’re worried about checks and balances? And “constitutional norms?” Really? Did you miss the stated policy of Hillary Clinton to amend the Constitution––to literally amend the First Amendment (the most important paragraph in the history of human freedom)? Did you miss that? Not to mention what she says she’ll do to the Second Amendment. Constitutional norms? Really?

Trump deserves much of the derision he gets, but this worse-than-Clinton-existential-threat-to-the-country BS is just that: BS. Hillary Clinton is a known threat to the classical liberal ideals upon which this country was founded. Just ask her. She’s not ashamed of it. It’s right there on her website. The First Amendment will be changed, and the Second Amendment will be reinterpreted.

The way the Supreme Court works these days is a reality. Clinton will use it to get whatever leftist utopian nightmare she wants out of it. No amount of prudishness about Trump’s buffoonery will stop that.

William McGurn comes closer to the truth in his recent Wall Street Journal opinion:

Whatever the shortcomings of Mr. Trump’s people, non-progressives simply do not share the itch to use the government to boss everyone else around. On top of this, an overreaching President Trump would not be excused by the press and would face both Republican and Democratic opposition. Fair enough to argue that Mr. Trump represents a huge risk. But honesty requires that this risk be weighed against a clear-eyed look at the certainties a Hillary Clinton administration would bring.

“Would not be excused by the press”––Clinton, on the other hand, will absolutely be excused by the press. “Would face both Republican and Democratic opposition”––Clinton will only be opposed by Republicans, and, as we all know, that has been searingly effective against Obama.

The truth is that these two front runners, Clinton and Trump, are shameful signifiers of where we are as a people––evidence that we love authoritarianism, evidence that we don’t understand economics, evidence that we are afraid of the liberty envisioned in our founding documents.

Trump is an idiot. He is not the evil mastermind the left would have us believe him to be. His book is not Mein Kampf, it’s The Art of the Deal, which was ghostwritten. His speech at the Republican National Convention––his fear-mongering about crime, for example––made it clear that he’s just another mindless Democrat. His protectionism will do exactly the opposite of what he says it will do. He’s a sexist imbecile. He plays on racism and fear, to which he plans to build a monument in the form of a Pink Floyd reunion concert stage. And he will be met with opposition at every turn.

But Clinton is experienced, and she is backed by a machine that has had decades of fortification. She will go right on with Obama’s skirting of congress. But she will also stack the court with leftists, she will move the already pervasive speech control into the realm of thought control, and there will be no way to stop her from further inflicting the vision of progressivism upon us all––a vision, by the way, which is inherently bigoted. And Clinton will have very little opposition.

All eyes were on Beyoncé during this year’s Met Gala as she rocked a Ty Hunter dress made from the skins of 101 pimply white kids.

“When the idea came to me, my first question was where are we going to get the skin,” said Hunter. “Since Beyoncé is a good friend of the President and the First Lady, I knew it would be a little controversial to use American kids. Luckily, my contacts in London introduced me to two cockney thugs named Jasper and Horace. Apparently the smokey streets of old London are full of little urchins and chimney sweeps begging for farthings.”

Planned Parenthood announced today that they will go forward with their plans to celebrate the final evening of Passover by killing the firstborn sons of any who fail to mark their doorposts with lamb’s blood.

“We encourage all to go ahead and mark their doors,” said Deputy Mark Clifton, of the Kent County Sheriff’s Department. “While we’re not positive that the threat is real, it’s better to be safe than sorry.”

Authorities say to keep your first born sons close as Planned Parenthood could strike at any moment. “If you’re not with your child and you hear a “crushing-the-specimen”–like sound, it might be too late,” said Clifton.

Though federally qualified health centers outnumber Planned Parenthood 20 – 1, and many of those, unlike Planned Parenthood, are free of charge, it is believed that Planned Parenthood continues to wield power over Hebrews and Gentiles alike because of name recognition.

A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood said that their plans have been taken totally out of context by pro-life zealots, and that this evening’s killing spree will only represent 3% of their Passover celebration.

Cable news and social media were on fire yesterday after 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave a blistering rebuke to current Republican front runner, Donald Trump. Fans of the speech lauded Romney’s two-fisted approach to dealing with a bully. But Trump supporters were quick to point out the absolute impossibility of someone accepting Trump’s endorsement four years ago and then thinking he’s an idiot now.

Hidden in all the commotion was a truly phenomenal moment in primate studies. Researchers at Louisiana’s New Iberia Research Center were going about their business when they noticed a group of chimpanzees gathering around a television.

“We had Romney’s speech on in the background, because we were all curious about what he would say,” said Director of Research Blake Carlson. “When we noticed the chimps gathering, we immediately whipped out our clipboards and pencils.”

According to Carlson, at the moment Romney began to berate Trump, the chimps grew visibly agitated. “They made threatening gestures and beat the floor with their fists,” said Carlson. “But when Romney said the words ‘fraud’ and ‘phony,’ all hell broke loose.”

“They were slinging poop everywhere,” said research assistant Pam Bernstein. “The more adamant Romney became, the more poop hit the television screen.”

But it was difficult for the researchers to believe that a bunch of chimps––now affectionately known as “chumps”––were supporting Trump, so they tried an experiment. They found one of Trump’s rally speeches on Youtube and played it for the animals.

“Absolute reverence filled the room,” said Bernstein. “One of the chimps started doing the sign language for ‘love’ and ‘friend.’ They seemed to laugh together, and they tickled their own bellies as he spoke. They were in heaven.”

“These are some of the smartest apes in the world,” added Carlson. “It cannot be overstated how exciting it is to see them engaging in political discourse at the level of, say, a really dumb human.”

But this isn’t the first political study the researchers of have done. Just last month they played a Bernie Sanders speech on Democratic Socialism for a group of dolphins.

“They mostly smiled,” said Carlson. “You know, because of the way their mouths are shaped. But after a while many of them began clicking and chirping letters that spelled out things like ‘Who’s this joker’ and ‘What a moron’ and ‘Economics is not a zero sum game, you idiot.’”

“It was amazing to see that even some animals understand that so-called ‘Democratic Socialism’ is an absurd oxymoron,” said Bernstein.

The Obama administration announced Friday that it will move forward with plans to test ideas behind leftist gun policies on animals. To that end, the president signed an executive order making the entire Florida coastline a “shark free zone.”

“We don’t usually advocate for testing on animals,” the president said, “but I can’t spend my entire presidency waiting for congress to act. Not only will this make Florida beaches safer, it will also make all shark attacks illegal.”

Relieved Florida residents immediately headed to the beach.

“It’s amazing to me that we’re just now doing this,” said Jennifer Blankhead. “It makes me sick to think of the many innocent people who have been needlessly torn from their surfboards. It’s a new day for Florida swimmers.”

Right wing critics who lack common sense and are clearly paid off by special interest groups expressed doubt about the measure.

“Sharks don’t decide against an attack because of ‘shark free zones’ or anti-shark-attack laws,” said Jack Thorne, stupidly and callously.

Australian officials spent the weekend wondering why they didn’t think of this first.

Controversy visited the campus of Michigan State University recently, when it was announced that conservative columnist George Will had been invited to give a commencement address.

When advocacy group UltraViolet caught wind of the invitation, they started a petition which has already been signed by thousands of champions of free expression.

A statement from the group reads in part:

We are outraged that a university of all places would subject young people to something approaching a marketplace of ideas. Who will be there to comfort them when their precious and delicate world views are challenged?

According to Bloomberg, one of the brighter protesters, Emily Kollaritsch, made her point loud and clear when she said, “We refuse to be silent. We’re going to have our voices heard.” She then put a piece of tape over her mouth and protested in silence. Without her voice.

Another protester, when confronted with the irony that she was exercising her first amendment rights to deprive George Will of his, paused for a moment of deep contemplation. She then put her fingers into her ears, wagged her head, and yelled repeatedly, “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, I can’t hear you.”

But MSU students aren’t the only enlightened undergraduates in the country. Take these sages for example. They strategized a brilliant plan to shout down a speaker who, among other things, planned to talk about the importance of protest. Or these promising scholars who felt a sculpture opposing racism was just too racist.